Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4649
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
RAJAMMA JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 4986/2020
P.S.BIJU, AMEER SALIM, SRI.AJIT JOY, SMT. K.R.DEEPA, JOMON J. MALIEKAL, SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI, SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM, SRI.C.M.NAZAR, SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, V.PHILIP MATHEW, AJIT JOY, SMT.K.R.DEEPA
Locus standi is a prerequisite for challenging property-related decisions, and individuals must demonstrate ownership rights to initiate legal proceedings against unauthorized constructions.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Writ Petitions - Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 - The court held that Smt. Rajamma lacked locus standi to challenge the regularisation of the convention centre as she was not the owner of the concerned property, thereby upholding the regularisation order and dismissing her claims.
Fact of the Case:
In three writ petitions, a senior citizen and two neighbors challenged the regularisation of unauthorized construction of a convention center by another individual, citing procedural violations and lack of opportunity to participate in demarcation proceedings.
Issues: Whether Smt. Rajamma had the locus standi to challenge the regularisation order and whether the regularisation process adhered to proper legal and procedural protocols.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that locus standi is essential for individuals filing challenges regarding property issues, and Smt. Rajamma's lack of ownership barred her from claiming rights over unauthorized construction matters.
Final Decision: The third writ petition was dismissed for being not maintainable; the regularisation order was upheld.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.950/2023, 4986/2020, 16331/2021]
Typographical errors are corrected suo motu and judgment uploaded again.
This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions.
W.P.(C).No.950/2023 titled as Arakkanattil Oommen Iype v. State of Kerala and Another (hereinafter called first writ petition), a senior citizen, an NRI, has sought the indulgence of this Court by seeking following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law expeditiously and within a time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii) Issue such other order or direction , as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”
2. Writ petition bearing No.16331 of 2021 titled as John Chandy and Another v. District Collector, Kottayam and Others (hereinafter called second writ petition) claiming following reliefs:
“a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 to permit the Petitioner to participate in the process of identification of government puramboke land-as initiated through Exhibit P4 notice by giving 7 days advance notice with liberty to engage independent surveyors and by providing/sharing the copy of such documents relied upon by the Respondents to conduct the survey.
b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 to share all the documents including survey map or such other records relied on by them to identify government puramboke as initiated through Exhibit P4 notice to the Petitioners.
c) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the 4th Respondent or such other authority pursuant to the measurement done on 30.07.2021 based on Exhibit P4 notice and to quash the same.
d) To grant such other relief's that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstance of the case and also to allow the Petitioners to realize the cost of the proceedings from Respondents.”
3. Writ petition bearing No.4986 of 2020 titled as Rajamma Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others (hereinafter called third writ petition) wherein Ext.P28 order dated 17.02.2020 of the Additional Chief Secretary dismissing the review petition, filed against the order of regularization of construction, has been assailed. The question of law and facts in these writ petitions are common, therefore, are decided together.
4. Petitioner in the first case, 7th respondent in the second case and 9th respondent in the third case are the same person, hereinafter represented by name “Shri.Iype”. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be necessary to give chronological dates of events.
(a) On 02.02.2010, vide sale deed of even date, Shri.Iype purchased 1.22 hectors of property in Re-survey No.13 Block No.78 of Muttambalam Village along with the building bearing door Nos.11/688 and 11/689 of Municipality, Kottayam on a built- up area of 560 square meters, allegedly adjacent to the property owned by the petitioner in the third writ petition, hereinafter referred to as “Smt.Rajamma”.
(b) Buildings according to Shri.Iype, was about 65 years and above old and used for godowns for storing plywood sheets. It was decided to convert the building as a convention centre by retaining building Nos.XI/688 and XI/689. The old buildings were modified and strengthened by taking into consideration the requirements of Rule 55 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.
(c) An application dated 24.02.2016 was submitted to the competent authority to permit the use of building as a convention centre. However, prior to that, there was a provisional order to stop the construction.
(d) On 04.04.2016, Smt.Rajamma filed an application for lay out, but the construction went on. On the basis of
